Case Law In re Janssens

In re Janssens

Document Cited Authorities (96) Cited in (10) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Charles Frederick Obrecht, Jr., Esquire, Obrecht and Obrecht, Severna Park, MD, Edward T. Kang, Esquire, Weir & Partners, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Gregory H. Mathews, Esquire, West Chester, PA, for Plaintiff.Lori S. Simpson, Esquire, Bishop, Daneman and Simpson, LLC, Baltimore, MD, James P. Golden, Esquire, Jane C. Silver, Esquire, Hamburg & Golden, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, James L. Lekin, Esquire, Cockeysville, MD, for Defendant.Joseph J. Bellinger, Esquire, Offit Kurman, Maple Lawn, MD, Chapter 7 Trustee.Mark A. Neal, Assistant U.S. Trustee, Office of the U.S. Trustee, Baltimore, MD, for U.S. Trustee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING COMPLAINT TO DETERMINE DEBT TO BE NONDISCHARGEABLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $189,375.93

JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The instant complaint to determine nondischargeability of debt came on for trial. For the reasons stated, the complaint will be granted and a debt in the amount of $189,375.93, will be determined to be nondischargeable.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The plaintiff, Freedom Medical, Inc. (“Freedom,” or “the plaintiff), is a Pennsylvania corporation located in Exton, Pennsylvania, that at all relevant times was engaged in the business of buying, refurbishing, renting and selling biomedical equipment. Adversary Complaint, ¶¶ 5 and 9. Freedom was founded in 1997 by Frank Gwynn (“Gwynn”), president, and Dominic Greco (“Greco”), the chief executive officer. Freedom Medical, Inc. Private Placement Memorandum dated November 1, 2004, at P. 16, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 36.

2. The debtor/defendant, Joseph W. Janssens, III (“Janssens,” or “the defendant) was employed full-time from August 2000 until April 2006, by Freedom as the regional manager of its branch office located in Baltimore, Maryland.

3. At the time Janssens was hired by Freedom, he signed an employment letter that indicated that customer contacts of Freedom represented confidential proprietary information; the use of which was limited exclusively for the benefit of Freedom.1

4. Freedom also advised Janssens that the company's employee handbooks and its acceptable use policy described such information as proprietary information to Freedom. Freedom Medical, Inc. Employee Handbook, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 4–6; Freedom Medical, Inc. Acceptable Use Policy, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 8; and Acknowledgment by Janssens of receipt of Freedom Medical Employment Policies, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 2.

5. Janssens also entered into an agreement with Freedom entitled “Non–Disclosure, Non-compete, Property Rights Agreement” dated August 28, 2001, Defendant's Ex. No. 2.2

6. In 2004, Freedom began to experience declining revenue. The revenue of the Baltimore branch which Janssens managed declined from $1.5 million in 2003 to $1.1 million by 2006. Affidavit of Frank Gwynn dated March 30, 2007, at 4, Defendant's Ex. No. 32.

7. On December 29, 2004, Freedom filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 04–37092–BIF. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 proceeding, Freedom neither assumed nor rejected the agreements with Janssens. The case was closed on June 21, 2006.

8. Gwynn and Greco investigated the reasons for the diminution in Freedom's revenue. Between 2004 and 2006, they met with Janssens in an attempt to determine the reasons for the decline. Transcript, P. 42, line 10 [P. 72]. At a meeting in the summer of 2005, they asked Janssens directly whether he was working outside of the business, which Janssens denied and said that he was “trying his best to build the business of Freedom Medical.” Transcript, p. 45, lines 16–24 [P. 72]. As a result of these and other meetings Gwynn came to believe that Janssens was “asleep at the wheel.” Transcript, 46, line 20 [P. 72].

9. In 2006, based upon the decline of sales at the Baltimore branch, Gwynn and Greco concluded that Janssens was “completely inattentive to the business, and he needed to be replaced.” Transcript, 54, lines 20–21 [P. 72]. On April 7, 2006, Freedom terminated Janssens' employment. Transcript, 55, line 25 [P. 72].

10. In May 2006, Freedom learned that items of its equipment that was missing was being rented by another entity that employed some of Freedom's former employees. Transcript, 56, lines 6–9 [P. 72]. Freedom hired a private investigator to investigate possible wrongdoing by its employees and former employees. Transcript, PP. 56–57, lines 16–19 [P. 72]. During the course of the investigation, Janssens' replacement as supervisor of the Baltimore branch learned that Janssens had been diverting business from Freedom to its competitors. The investigation disclosed that in 2004, Janssens began diverting corporate opportunities by using the customer contacts of Freedom and conveying those business leads to Quality Medical South 3 and Quality Medical Group (collectively referred to hereafter as “Quality”). Evidence disclosed a pattern of misconduct whereby Janssens solicited business from customers of Freedom on behalf of Quality and sold or rented equipment to them. Transcript, 70–71, lines 11–14 [P. 72].

11. In July 2006, Freedom sued Janssens and 22 other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a suit styled Freedom Medical, Inc. v. Gillespie, et al., Case No. 06–3195 (Suit No. 1), in which Freedom charged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Suit No. 1 was dismissed against Janssens at summary judgment “without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.” Memorandum and Order dated September 14, 2007 in Freedom Medical, Inc. v. Gillespie, et al., Case No. 06–3195, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 30.

12. During the pendency of Suit No. 1, Janssens acknowledged in a deposition that he was aware that any work he performed for another entity while he was employed by Freedom should have been disclosed to Freedom. Deposition Transcript of Joseph Janssens dated February 26, 2007, taken in Freedom Medical, Inc. v. Gillespie, et al., Case No. 06–3195, at 54, lines 6–15, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 3. Janssens admitted that his supervisors at Freedom would not have been “thrilled about it” and would not “have agreed with my assessment” that diverting corporate opportunities actually helped Freedom. Id. at 57, lines 9–19.

13. Freedom alleged that from March 1, 2004, until Janssens was terminated in April 7, 2006, he diverted approximately $649,407.81 worth of business from Freedom to Quality. From March 1, 2004, until April 7, 2006, Freedom paid Janssens $189,375.93, in salary and commissions. Janssens' W–2 Forms for 2004, 2005 and 2006, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 10. Quality paid Janssens commissions at rates ranging from 5% to 10% on gross revenues generated from the various transactions he conducted on behalf of Quality. Rule 26 Disclosures of Quality Medical Group, Inc., with attachments, filed in Freedom Medical, Inc. v. Janssens, et al., Case No. 07–4286, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 4–8. These commission rates were paid at a rate greater than that paid to Janssens by Freedom. Transcript, 74, lines 12–25 and 79, lines 1–2 [P. 72].

14. Janssens admitted diverting corporate opportunities from Freedom to Quality. Deposition Transcript of Janssens, dated September 26, 2008, taken in the instant adversary proceeding with exhibits, at 76, lines 1–7; 82, lines 19–21; and at 83, lines 1–9, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 4. Janssens claimed that in so doing, he was protecting Freedom by diverting to Quality those types of business or services in which Freedom was either not interested or was unable to perform.

15. Freedom disputed this assertion. Eric Wenzel (“Wenzel”), Chief Financial Officer of Freedom, testified that between 2004 and 2006, Freedom had between 25,000 and 27,000 pieces of biomedical equipment to meet their clients' rental needs. Transcript, 16, lines 22–25 and 17, lines 1–10 [P. 73]. During this period, Freedom's biomedical equipment had a utilization rate of between 38% and 43%. In cases where an item of equipment could not be found at the local branch, Wenzel testified that Freedom had a procedure whereby salespersons were directed to contact the company's asset management department, which in turn would locate or purchase the requested items. Transcript, 36, lines 20–25 and 37, lines 1–14 [P. 73]. Janssens did not follow the procedure. At trial, on the issue of a standard rental where the equipment might have been in Freedom's inventory but could not be found locally, Janssens could not recollect one instance where management was unable to meet the client's needs. Transcript, 202, lines 11–15 [P. 73].

16. Contrary to Janssens' assertion that Freedom was no longer interested in servicing its clients' medical equipment, Freedom offered its Preliminary Private Placement Memorandum (“PPPM”) to potential investors, which stated: We provide a full range of biomedical equipment related to services, including equipment delivery, inspection, maintenance, preventative maintenance, logistical services, repair, and documentation.” PPPM dated November 1, 2004, at 30, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 36. The PPPM also described the Freedom support staff associated with these services, including “18 sales representatives, 15 customer service representatives and 42 biomedical technicians.” Id. As of August 31, 2004, Freedom attributed 5.7% of its revenue to the servicing of biomedical equipment. Id. at A–3.

17. In December 2004, Janssens diverted a $90,000 sale of medical equipment for Integrated Medical Systems (“IMS”) to Quality. Purchase order dated December 29, 2004, Plaintiff's Ex. No. 42. In his deposition taken in Suit No. 1, Janssens testified that Mr. Pat Dorio of IMS “made it...

5 cases
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina – 2015
Ballard v. Thoennes (In re Thoennes)
"... ... “The purpose of the unclean hands doctrine is to prevent a court from aiding or abetting a party in the commission of a fraud or other misconduct.” In re Lafferty, 469 B.R. 235, 245–46 (Bankr.D.S.C.2012) (quoting In re Janssens, 449 B.R. 42, 65 (Bankr.D.Md.2010) ). Even assuming Thoennes failed to include material information on his petition and schedules, as discussed above, § 727 provides a specific remedy to address any such conduct within certain time limits before entry of discharge 536 B.R. 690 and additional ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina – 2016
Friedman v. Campbell (In re Campbell)
"... ... See In re Eisaman, 387 B.R. 219 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.2008). That existing liability generally must be established under non-bankruptcy law. See id. In determining the existence and amount of the debt, the bankruptcy court must apply relevant state law. In re Janssens, 449 B.R. 42 (Bankr.D.Md.2010). judgment aff'd, 2011 WL 1642575 (D.Md.2011). Plaintiffs have not included in their brief in support of the motion for summary judgment any theory of liability under non-bankruptcy law. Plaintiffs filed this action requesting that the Court find some obligation ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina – 2017
Gully Brook Revocable Trust & Tasha's Way Revocable Trust v. Cook (In re Cook)
"... ... at 224. To determine the existence and amount of the debt, the Court must apply relevant non-bankruptcy law. See In re Janssens , 449 B.R. 42, 66 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010), aff'd sub nom , Janssens v. Freedom Med., Inc. , No. CIV. JFM-10-2042, 2011 WL 1642575 (D. Md. Apr. 29, 2011). In a case such as this one, the court will look to applicable state law. Id. (quoting Grogan v. Garner , 498 U.S. 279, 283-84, 111 S.Ct. 654, ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina – 2012
In re Lafferty
"... ... We will not refuse relief to a party merely because it has engaged in misconduct which is unrelated to its claims before the court.” In re Janssens, 449 B.R. 42, 65 (Bankr.D.Md.2010) (quoting New Valley Corp. v. Corporate Prop. Assocs. 2 & 3 (In re New Valley Corp.), 181 F.3d 517, 525 (3d Cir.1999)). See also In re Uwimana, 274 F.3d 806, 810–11 (4th Cir.2001); (“A court can deny relief under the doctrine of unclean hands only when ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas – 2019
Brei v. Ben Brinck, Asset Acceptance, LLC (In re Brei)
"... ... The familiar maxim that ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands’ means that a litigant cannot call upon a court of equity to grant him extraordinary relief if he himself has been guilty of of [sic] inequitable or unconscionable conduct."). 96 Freedom Med., Inc. v. Janssens (In re Janssens) , 449 B.R. 42, 65 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010) (quoting New Valley Corp. v. Corporate Prop. Assocs. 2 & 3 (In re New Valley Corp.) , 181 F.3d 517, 525 (3d Cir. 1999) ) (emphasis added). 97 See, e.g. , In re Lafferty , 469 B.R. 235, 245-46 (Bank. D.S.C. 2012) (under the doctrine of ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina – 2015
Ballard v. Thoennes (In re Thoennes)
"... ... “The purpose of the unclean hands doctrine is to prevent a court from aiding or abetting a party in the commission of a fraud or other misconduct.” In re Lafferty, 469 B.R. 235, 245–46 (Bankr.D.S.C.2012) (quoting In re Janssens, 449 B.R. 42, 65 (Bankr.D.Md.2010) ). Even assuming Thoennes failed to include material information on his petition and schedules, as discussed above, § 727 provides a specific remedy to address any such conduct within certain time limits before entry of discharge 536 B.R. 690 and additional ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina – 2016
Friedman v. Campbell (In re Campbell)
"... ... See In re Eisaman, 387 B.R. 219 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.2008). That existing liability generally must be established under non-bankruptcy law. See id. In determining the existence and amount of the debt, the bankruptcy court must apply relevant state law. In re Janssens, 449 B.R. 42 (Bankr.D.Md.2010). judgment aff'd, 2011 WL 1642575 (D.Md.2011). Plaintiffs have not included in their brief in support of the motion for summary judgment any theory of liability under non-bankruptcy law. Plaintiffs filed this action requesting that the Court find some obligation ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina – 2017
Gully Brook Revocable Trust & Tasha's Way Revocable Trust v. Cook (In re Cook)
"... ... at 224. To determine the existence and amount of the debt, the Court must apply relevant non-bankruptcy law. See In re Janssens , 449 B.R. 42, 66 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010), aff'd sub nom , Janssens v. Freedom Med., Inc. , No. CIV. JFM-10-2042, 2011 WL 1642575 (D. Md. Apr. 29, 2011). In a case such as this one, the court will look to applicable state law. Id. (quoting Grogan v. Garner , 498 U.S. 279, 283-84, 111 S.Ct. 654, ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina – 2012
In re Lafferty
"... ... We will not refuse relief to a party merely because it has engaged in misconduct which is unrelated to its claims before the court.” In re Janssens, 449 B.R. 42, 65 (Bankr.D.Md.2010) (quoting New Valley Corp. v. Corporate Prop. Assocs. 2 & 3 (In re New Valley Corp.), 181 F.3d 517, 525 (3d Cir.1999)). See also In re Uwimana, 274 F.3d 806, 810–11 (4th Cir.2001); (“A court can deny relief under the doctrine of unclean hands only when ... "
Document | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Texas – 2019
Brei v. Ben Brinck, Asset Acceptance, LLC (In re Brei)
"... ... The familiar maxim that ‘he who comes into equity must come with clean hands’ means that a litigant cannot call upon a court of equity to grant him extraordinary relief if he himself has been guilty of of [sic] inequitable or unconscionable conduct."). 96 Freedom Med., Inc. v. Janssens (In re Janssens) , 449 B.R. 42, 65 (Bankr. D. Md. 2010) (quoting New Valley Corp. v. Corporate Prop. Assocs. 2 & 3 (In re New Valley Corp.) , 181 F.3d 517, 525 (3d Cir. 1999) ) (emphasis added). 97 See, e.g. , In re Lafferty , 469 B.R. 235, 245-46 (Bank. D.S.C. 2012) (under the doctrine of ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex